The Bigger Picture: Visual Archives and the Smithsonian

The Wedding Story

by Merry Foresta on December 31, 2009

When I read Laurie Lambrecht’s recent contribution to click! about wedding photography it triggered more thoughts about the comparisons between photography’s future and its past. While many fine art photographers known for other work pay the bills with work at weddings, by capitol “H” history of photography standards, wedding photography is usually seen as the last refuge of scoundrels, the photographic equivalent of Adam Sandler in The Wedding Singer. I heard of one photographer who only shoots people’s shoes at a wedding. But photographs of brides and bridal parties, brides and grooms, and relatives have been with photography from the beginning.

At the moment photography entered the United States and our visual vocabulary it brought with it a mix of conflicting emotions. It was on the one hand a miraculous invention that could “let nature paint herself” exactly. As photography studios proliferated portrait photographs had more and more currency in the world and a walk down most American main streets would be a walk down a gallery of faces that glinted out from studio storefronts. To read any of the many accounts of such an experience the act of seeing could also be a bit spooky. And it was speculated that revealing your face to the camera for a portrait might also produce a portrait of the “inner you,” and that could be embarrassing, even dangerous. Long before the police blotters filled up with mug shots and an entire theory of visual forensics was created, writers speculated that criminals could be revealed by the camera eye. The medium also offered to a mid-nineteenth century America struggling with the chaos of an economic crisis (a national malaise not to be solved financially or spiritually until the 1849 discovery of gold in California) material for an engaging and uplifting story about the good and evil effects of looking, seeing, and posing. Popular fiction, especially in the new form of the sentimental short story, increasingly included allusions to photography. In many stories a hero, usually a young professional man adrift in the big city, sees a cased daguerreotype in a studio’s storefront display, falls in love with the image, and becomes obsessed with meeting its “original.” After several exciting adventures fending off brigands and thieves he finds his true love, and in a daguerreian love-at-first-sight happy ending, marries the girl. The true and noble character of both hero and nation are perpetuated, all thanks to the photograph. Wedding portraits continue to tell a good story and photographs, including some by Laurie Lambrecht, add an important piece to the cultural narrative. Each week the New York Times' Sunday Styles includes a substantial section of wedding photographs. Formal portraits of couples and individual brides wearing white are more often than not surrounded by informal poses of couples at home or outdoors. Following the rules of the pose—couples are urged by the Times editor to keep their eyebrows on the same level—they seem to all be part of a balanced formula of happiness. On the newspaper page a new age of wedding diversity—black, white, gay, and straight—forms a comforting pattern of photographic sameness. Along with the picture is a text that details the courtship. Though individual details may differ, in addition to the usual wedding information of age, occupation, and lineage, the text that accompanies each photograph includes a bit of drama, sometimes tragedy, but always resolution. In the end, someone always gets married.

Merry Foresta is the Former Director of the Smithsonian Photography Initiative.

Drama, resolution, but in the end somebody always gets married. Interesting what photography has become, especially with how much it costs now to get pictures done at a wedding. It has also been curious to see the transformation of professional cameras, they have become so affordable now. When I was downtown for an art convention last weekend I had to of seen a thousand DSLR's if I saw one. Everybody thinks they are a professional now.

As a wedding photographer myself I can verify that a wedding does usually include 'a bit of drama'. Wedding photography is a great barometer of fashion and fads across cultures. The reportage style of photography has become increasingly popular and the staid 'eyebrows on the same level' request is rare indeed.

It's so intersting how styles and traditions change over the years. I've only just found out that it wasn't until Queen Victoria's wedding in 1840 that people started wearing a white wedding dress! It's amazing that almost every bride still wears white, despite the massive shift in fashion and abandonement of tradition. I like what you say about 'last refuge of the scoundrels'! It's so true. Most wedding singers do see it as a 'bad gig' and would rather be making music elsewhere. Not me though, of course!

It's nice - in this age of point and shoot digital photography - to reflect on the good old days of photography. It's amazing how much has changed, but how many things remain the same. Plus ca change...

Yes as with many of the other submissions above I smiled at the phrase 'wedding photography is usually seen as the last refuge of scoundrels'
Often when researching a church before a wedding I may come across the vicar working at his desk or whatever...'His yes what can I do for you?'.. accompanied with a welcoming smile soon changes when you say you are the wedding photographer...the smile vanishes and he or she becomes defensive and on guard. Normality is usually resumed with a cordial chat to reassure the vicar that you are not an unprincipled or villainous rogue.
Yes, wedding photographers can with some quarters suffer from a bad reputation.

Although it`s part of our culture from less than 200 years, photography is and will remain a tool of life celebration, for the simple fact that a picture is able to store so much feelings and memories. That`s for sure and these images are nothing but the proof!

Love Rob's comment, one could argue that there are still some scoundrels taking refuge! I can definitely say though that although we're sometimes treated with suspicion, as Richard suggested as soon as you put the officiants on-side things are usually fine.

I was told by an ex-Army Padre at a major church wedding once that he booted a photographer out for following the bride down the aisle with a light stand on a dolly .... I was not surprised :-)